respond_to_review

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the response is public and visible on the App Store, the call is gated by a confirmation prompt where supported, and otherwise returns a preview plus a confirmToken that must be passed back only on an approved repeat call. That is exactly the kind of side-effect and auth/confirmation detail annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded in the first clause before the confirmation mechanics. No filler; every phrase (public, App Store, confirmToken, MCP_CONFIRM_MODE) carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the consequence (public posting), the confirmation requirement, and the fallback return shape (preview + confirmToken). It leaves out whether an existing response is overwritten, required permissions, and rate limits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the confirmToken parameter is already documented in detail in the schema, including the 'never on the first call, never invented, never reused' rule. The description reinforces the two-phase flow but adds no new per-parameter meaning (no format constraints or examples for responseBody beyond what the schema states).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb pair (post or update), the exact resource (the PUBLIC developer response to a customer review), and the scope (visible on the App Store). This is unambiguously distinct from the read-only siblings list_customer_reviews and get_customer_review.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the confirmation protocol clearly and tells the agent to expect a two-phase interaction, which is the main 'how/when' guidance an agent needs. It does not explicitly say to locate the reviewId via list_customer_reviews/get_customer_review first, nor whether this can be used on a review that already has a response.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.